ArticlePeerJ2017
Kullback Leibler divergence in complete bacterial and phage genomes.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinically relevant genomic and phenotypic differences in virulence, antimicrobial resistance, and biofilm-associated tolerance between Streptococcus suis lineages ST1 and ST123.Veterinary research · 2026Article
- Investigating Metrics of Discrete-Individual Repeatability of the Stress Response.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Unsupervised identification of significant lineages of SARS-CoV-2 through scalable machine learning methods.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Large-scale k-mer-based analysis of the informational properties of genomes, comparative genomics and taxonomy.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The amino acid content of the proteins encoded by a genome may predict the coding potential of that genome and may reflect lifestyle restrictions of the organism. Here, we calculated the Kullback-Leibler divergence from the mean amino acid content as a metric to compare the amino acid composition for a large set of bacterial and phage genome sequences. Using these data, we demonstrate that (i) there is a significant difference between amino acid utilization in different phylogenetic groups of bacteria and phages; (ii) many of the bacteria with the most skewed amino acid utilization profiles, or the bacteria that host phages with the most skewed profiles, are endosymbionts or parasites; (iii) the skews in the distribution are not restricted to certain metabolic processes but are common across all bacterial genomic subsystems; (iv) amino acid utilization profiles strongly correlate with GC content in bacterial genomes but very weakly correlate with the G+C percent in phage genomes. These findings might be exploited to distinguish coding from non-coding sequences in large data sets, such as metagenomic sequence libraries, to help in prioritizing subsequent analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.